On Mon 14/Jun/2021 14:41:44 +0200 Brotman, Alex wrote:
I agree that all elements, each time they are utilized, should mention a
reference as to how they are to be utilized.
[...]
So, a sample report may look something like:
<feedback>
<version>2.0</version>
<report_metadata>
<version>2</version>
So why doesn't <feedback> mention a reference to how it is utilized?
About that overabundance of <version>'s, the 1st entry, right below <feedback>, is the aggregate report
version. Thus far, we agreed that it is useless as a grammar indication if <feedback> contains its namespace
declaration. However, Matt noted that there may be parsers that consider reports to be pre-IETF drafts if they
miss the <version> element. In this case, it makes sense to keep <version>1.0</version> for
backward compatibility, especially if we try not to break existing parsers.
The second <version> entry, inside <report_metadata>, had better wear a
different name, to avoid confusion. I assume it's meant to be the report reference
version. A couple of alternative examples:
<report_metadata>
<generator>https://github.com/trusteddomainproject/OpenDMARC/releases/tag/rel-opendmarc-1-4-1</generator>
or
<report_metadata>
<generator>
<url>http://www.trusteddomain.org/opendmarc/</url>
<version>1.4.1</version>
</generator>
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
